Size matters. Just look at any draft site, what's the first few things to learn about any prospect? How tall he is. How big he is. How fast he is. Then there are a few million internet GMs who rave about it, throwing out this phrase so I wanted to ask....what do you consider prototypical? I also wonder, does this mean average for the position or does it mean that this size/speed combo is set up to dominate the opponents? Is there a minimum requirement for you personally?

For me it's the domination. You build a car, you're probably not wasting your time building something that will barely hang in the fast lane of the highway. You want something that you can take anywhere to beat anyone. So...

I included my expectations (although the variations are subtle). Regardless of people may say, size matters. I don't care how much "heart" you have, if you're 5'9" 170-lbs and a player that's 6'2" 260-lbs collides with you, you're gonna' have a bad time.

Rey

12-05-2012 09:06 AM

Jones drew isn't 5'10"...

I doubt ray rice is, but I've seen drew up close and he's not 5'10".

And why do you want your wr's 6'3" +, but only want your cb's at 5'10"?

Rey

12-05-2012 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan4Ever
(Post 2071688)

I included my expectations (although the variations are subtle). Regardless of people may say, size matters. I don't care how much "heart" you have, if you're 5'9" 170-lbs and a player that's 6'2" 260-lbs collides with you, you're gonna' have a bad time.

It depends on the position you play and also the scheme you play in.

While size matters, so does talent.

You can be as big or as close to prototypical size as you want to be, but if you run into someone that is just flat out better you will also have a bad time.

When I was in college we had wr's and rb's that could outbench and out squat everyone on the team. Little guys...but they were solidly built...really strong...

Size matters less to me that physical ability and skill level.

I'll take a wes welker all day over a Bunch of bigger guys.

But of course if you think the talent is equal or close to it, the bigger player wins out. But you don't take a bigger guy with a lower ceiling and less talent just because he's bigger.

Say Watt

12-05-2012 10:11 AM

6" or more.

badboy

12-05-2012 05:29 PM

Re: "Prototypical Size"

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimeKiller
(Post 2071264)

Size matters. Just look at any draft site, what's the first few things to learn about any prospect? How tall he is. How big he is. How fast he is. Then there are a few million internet GMs who rave about it, throwing out this phrase so I wanted to ask....what do you consider prototypical? I also wonder, does this mean average for the position or does it mean that this size/speed combo is set up to dominate the opponents? Is there a minimum requirement for you personally?

For me it's the domination. You build a car, you're probably not wasting your time building something that will barely hang in the fast lane of the highway. You want something that you can take anywhere to beat anyone. So...

It is a trade off for me, but usually prefer bigger guys versus fast/quick guys except @ WR and corner. me and Al Davis had this in common (he was richer but I am better looking). I want WR and CBs that have speed to burn; if you cannot catch them doesn't matter how good or tall you are. Vertical leap is another important consideration.

You can have big and fast in Jacoby Jones and still have little to boast on. With size usually the hip swivle and balance suffer. I agree with most of your thread but not RB. I argued for years that smaller backs not as good as bigger back in our system. Along comes Foster and Tate....I like a Forsett on roster for 8-10 carries but give me the 215+ guy that can bust 4.50.

beerlover

12-06-2012 04:18 AM

Re: "Prototypical Size"

Quote:

Originally Posted by badboy
(Post 2072038)

It is a trade off for me, but usually prefer bigger guys versus fast/quick guys except @ WR and corner. me and Al Davis had this in common (he was richer but I am better looking). I want WR and CBs that have speed to burn; if you cannot catch them doesn't matter how good or tall you are. Vertical leap is another important consideration.

You can have big and fast in Jacoby Jones and still have little to boast on. With size usually the hip swivle and balance suffer. I agree with most of your thread but not RB. I argued for years that smaller backs not as good as bigger back in our system. Along comes Foster and Tate....I like a Forsett on roster for 8-10 carries but give me the 215+ guy that can bust 4.50.

I would wait for their respective combine numbers to confirm. School measurements are not always accurate or trustworthy.

badboy

12-06-2012 01:55 PM

Re: "Prototypical Size"

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerlover
(Post 2072260)

I would wait for their respective combine numbers to confirm. School measurements are not always accurate or trustworthy.

My numbers like all mocks that I know of use what is known. We all have seen the 6'3 QB turn out to be 5'11. lol Same with speed. Problem I have with combine is accuracy also. Some combine 40 times are super fast with every one running 4.4 or some WRs or DBs who run 4.6 combine and then 4.4 at pro days. I think one of the WRs last combine ran a high 40 on official timer but several team officials had him much faster. Kendall Wright, IIRC?

I would not draft any guy just on measurables rather than actual film. Remember how concerned I was with Vonn Miller's combine?

beerlover

12-06-2012 02:05 PM

Re: "Prototypical Size"

Quote:

Originally Posted by badboy
(Post 2072498)

My numbers like all mocks that I know of use what is known. We all have seen the 6'3 QB turn out to be 5'11. lol Same with speed. Problem I have with combine is accuracy also. Some combine 40 times are super fast with every one running 4.4 or some WRs or DBs who run 4.6 combine and then 4.4 at pro days. I think one of the WRs last combine ran a high 40 on official timer but several team officials had him much faster. Kendall Wright, IIRC?

I would not draft any guy just on measurables rather than actual film. Remember how concerned I was with Vonn Miller's combine?

combine numbers are important to NFL teams it helps them judge prospects on an even playing field. sometimes the truth huts :smiliepalm:

badboy

12-07-2012 01:23 PM

Re: "Prototypical Size"

Quote:

Originally Posted by beerlover
(Post 2072507)

combine numbers are important to NFL teams it helps them judge prospects on an even playing field. sometimes the truth huts :smiliepalm:

Count or not you & I and 65 will be watching combine as always!

TimeKiller

12-08-2012 01:45 PM

Re: "Prototypical Size"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rey
(Post 2071752)

Jones drew isn't 5'10"...

I doubt ray rice is, but I've seen drew up close and he's not 5'10".

And why do you want your wr's 6'3" +, but only want your cb's at 5'10"?

Wow, I just looked it up I had no idea he was THAT short. At any rate, I think I would prefer the stocky bowling balls with speed to the bigger backs.

WR bigger, bigger targets. CB smaller because guys that are 6'3'', run like the wind and have cover ability probably play safety. Or, if they have hands, WR. How many 6'3'' corners have you ever heard of?